Monday, March 8, 2010

A Sermon From PZ Myers

Evolution, the theory that natural processes created all life, is mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created our world. Ironically, a belief about God underwrites a theory that, as Richard Dawkins put it, "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." But historians have seen this before. Alan Charles Kors, for example, found that eighteenth century French atheism had come from the church and its culture. Kors wrote:

[My] inquiry led not to a prior history of free thought ... but to the orthodox culture of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in France. It was, above all, within the deeply Christian learned culture of those years that there occurred inquiries and debates that generated the components of atheistic thought. It was, to say the least, not what I had expected; it indeed was what I found. … Before one can understand the heterodoxy of early-modern atheism, one first must understand the orthodox sources of disbelief.

Likewise the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume buttressed his religious skepticism and nascent evolutionary ideas by relentlessly pounding home his religious themes. The complexity of the world was a tremendous problem for Hume, but it was trumped by the world's evil. "Here I triumph," proclaimed his character Philo.

Not surprisingly evolution and atheism today continue to entail such claims. Atheists argue that the world is not as we would expect if God had created it. Therefore the world must have evolved and God is superfluous. Notice that this makes evolution a fact, not merely a theory. Sound familiar?

And notice that this is a religious argument. It depends on assumptions about what God would and would not create. It doesn't matter whether the science supports evolution (it doesn't), one way or another evolution must be true. Here is an example from PZ Myers, writing in the LA Times about how he analyzes religion:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

That is a religious argument. Myers, who comes from a Lutheran background, draws a conclusion that depends on what he believes about God. God wouldn't create patterns in the fossil species. God wouldn't create similarities between species. It makes no difference that evolution does not explain how life, in all its incredible forms, actually arose. It does not matter that evolution is consistently wrong--it must be right. Our religion depends on it.

Evolutionists such as Myers have been duped by religion. They use it and they depend on it, but they imagine they are free of it. Those who are most in debt to their religious commitments are also the most deceived.

Evolution, the theory that natural processes created all life, is mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created our world.

Dr Hunter, I think that might be a too strong a claim. To most believers, God is omnipotent. What could have prevented an omnipotent deity from creating a universe that enjoys delegated (“natural”) causal power?

Current Roman Catholic doctrine on evolution, for example, takes the position that God is perfectly capable of such delegation. So, if a Catholic can investigate natural causation in biology, using evolutionary theory as a conceptual framework, without denying God’s existence or power, why can’t a non-Catholic investigate natural causes in biology without relying on any religious presuppositions?

"We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does."

The striking thing about this form of belief is the total and complete anthropomorphism... or more precisely egomorphism. Secularists bash religions for seeing a human-style god, then in the next sentence insist that a god must behave exactly as THE GREAT ME, THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, would behave. At least religions posit a grown-up god, not a 6-month-old god with no ego boundaries!

This egomorphism extends well outside the realm of creation, as I noted here:http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2008/04/same-old-error.html

====To most believers, God is omnipotent. What could have prevented an omnipotent deity from creating a universe that enjoys delegated (“natural”) causal power?====

Nothing that I know of. So what? How is this relevant to evolutionary thought?

====Current Roman Catholic doctrine on evolution, for example, takes the position that God is perfectly capable of such delegation. So, if a Catholic can investigate natural causation in biology, using evolutionary theory as a conceptual framework, without denying God’s existence or power, why can’t a non-Catholic investigate natural causes in biology without relying on any religious presuppositions?====

A biologist, Roman Catholic or otherwise, could probably do all sorts of things. I suppose he even could do science without injecting silly religious mandates if he really tried. But the fact is they do.

"Secularists bash religions for seeing a human-style god, then in the next sentence insist that a god must behave exactly as THE GREAT ME, THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, would behave. At least religions posit a grown-up god, not a 6-month-old god with no ego boundaries!"

Why should it matter if Myers makes a religious comment when analyzing religion? The sentences following the line you picked are perhaps more illustrative:

"It wouldn't be a place almost entirely inimical to our existence, with a history that reveals our existence was a fortunate result of a long chain of accidents tuned by natural selection. Most of the arguments we've heard that try to reconcile god and science seem to make God a subtle, invisible, undetectable ghost who at best tickles the occasional subatomic particle when no one is looking. It seems rather obvious to us that if his works are undetectable, you have no grounds for telling us what he's been up to."

So, in public, he makes anti-religious claims. I don't see the effect on his science. It would be a real indictment if Hunter could find similar analysis in his papers. Searches of his papers for 'God' 'Atheist' or 'Religion' come up with nothing. It seems his practice is religious-neutral. It is no more 'atheistic' than teaching economics without mentioning Christ's sermons. Same with but conversely of say, that of Francis Collins, etc. If no one with religious views of either direction can practice science, we're in trouble.

Darren:"An atheist talking about values? Can you define what is "good" next?"

And we were have such an amicable discussion.

As much as I would like to point out the Crusaders defined "good" to include the massacre of Muslims, Pagans and Jews, but I decided against that.

Instead, I will point out how I feel Atheism isn’t really about the existence or non-existence of a generic “God”. I suspect most Atheists are really Agnostics.

For example, Richard Dawkins admits to being agnostic concerning God and fairies at the bottom of gardens.

Personally, I think it would be kind of neat if God actually exists. I would envision him/her/it to be like a Supernatural Scientist. Think of our universe as being some kind of supernatural science fair project. I would hope we get a Blue Ribbon.

I would be curious to see if Larry Tanner would dare say that is impossible. I would be even more interested in finding out how he thinks he can know that.

I suggest it isn’t God that is important; it is the feeling of righteousness of “knowing” you are on the good guy’s side. Never mind the fact the other side thinks they are the good guys too. After all, they are heretics… or is that infidels?

I'm an atheist and I know slavery is wrong (because I believe in property rights, and the body is one's greatest property)? How do you?

No biblical figure opposes it.Colossians 4:1"Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven."But not freedom....

Ephesians 6:5"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."Don't run away!!!

I'll assume you are christian, and you believe the Resurrection invalidates Judaic law for some reason, and spare you the stonings, rapes, and assorted mischief. However, I'm not sure how there is a full barrel of "ethics" when you dispense with those.

Matthew:

"There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."OUCH!

As with most of the New Testament thinks the end is coming soon, so we should abstain from sex or marriage.

I didn't ask for an apologetic look at why slavery is permitted by god. I asked why, if the Bible is your sole moral guide, slavery is wrong. I support this with quotes form your moral guide, showing other behaviors that you should morally have embraced. Are you a eunuch?

Again, I believe in property rights. I believe in them because I don't want my property violated, A workable system that evolved is for people, therefore, not to violate other's property. I should not murder, because that eliminates someone else's property. Similarly rape, slavery, etc. violates the victim's property. To reinforce this, we have a system to deprive me of my freedom or life.

"If there is no God, there is no right or wrong - correct?"

Yeah, the majority of Danes, Sweeds, and Japanese are terrible people who do all sorts of awful things. Hence their horrible horrible murder rates.

"if you dont believe in God or the Bible, why do you use it as an Authority on what must be right or wrong"

If one doesn't believe in God or the Bible, any number of books and treatises - including the Bible - may be chosen as an authority (lowercase "a") on right and wrong. Yes, it was conceived and written by people but some of the stories are good and some of the sayings seem to hold up. Lots of it is crap, too.

Dr Hunter, I have read the above reference, and I see no evidence that the arguments of Sober or Gould concerning what God might or might not have done are intended to be “proofs.” It looks to me that they are rhetorical devices to illustrate the arbitrariness of some sectarian Christian views of biological origins. Sectarian in the sense that they are the views of some fundamentalist biblical literalists, but not of Christians in general, as my reference to Catholicism attests.

The utility of evolutionary theory as a framework for the study of biology does not rest on such rhetoric. It rests on the published scientific literature, easily accessible nowadays on the Internet.

A biologist, Roman Catholic or otherwise, could probably do all sorts of things. I suppose he even could do science without injecting silly religious mandates if he really tried. But the fact is they do.

At the risk of being repetitious, I will say that silly religious mandates have nothing to do with the utility of evolutionary theory for explaining biology. What avenues of scientific exploration have been frustrated by evolutionary theory?

Electricity, the theory that natural processes created all lightning, is mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created lightning storms. Ironically, a belief about God underwrites a theory that, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "explains the similarity between lightning and the emanations of Leyden jars."

Not surprisingly electricity and deism today continue to entail such claims. Deists argue that lightning is not as we would expect if God had created it. Therefore lightning must be caused by electricity and God is superfluous. Notice that this makes electricity a fact, not merely a theory.

Sound familiar?

And notice that this is a religious argument. It depends on assumptions about what God would and would not create. It doesn't matter whether the science supports Ben Franklin's electricity theory (it doesn't), one way or another electricity must be true. Here is an example from Ben Franklin:

"I touched the key hanging from the kite string and got a terrible shock similar to shocks from Leyden jars."

That is a religious argument. Franklin, who comes from a Quaker background, draws a conclusion that depends on what he believes about God. God wouldn't create similarities between lightning and the emanations of Leyden Jars.

It makes no difference that Franklin's electricity theory does not explain how life, in all its incredible forms, actually arose. It does not matter that electricity is consistently wrong--it must be right. Our religion depends on it.

Electricitists such as Ben Franklin have been duped by religion. They use it and they depend on it, but they imagine they are free of it. Those who are most in debt to their religious commitments are also the most deceived.

If you want some more laughs at the expense of anti-science, read my blog.

Dr Hunter, I have read the above reference, and I see no evidence that the arguments of Sober or Gould concerning what God might or might not have done are intended to be “proofs.”====

"Sober goes on to explain that such "useless" designs make separate ancestry unlikely, and therefore make common ancestry likely."

"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense."

I can show you the evidence, but I realize that doesn't mean you will see it.

====The utility of evolutionary theory as a framework for the study of biology does not rest on such rhetoric. It rests on the published scientific literature, easily accessible nowadays on the Internet.====

Nowhere in this article does Myers use the absence of a pro-human god in the Universe as evidence for common descent. The power of common descent as an explanatory model and its validity as a historical event has been established from diverse lines of evidence from genetics, development, and paleontology (as others have noted, Theobald has done a good job compiling this, but a complete understanding requires serious legwork through the scientific primary literature). The argument against intelligent design is but one line of reasoning, but it is one that has to be made because Darwin's thesis was a rival to both special creation of species and Paley's version of the argument from design, and furthermore intelligent design has been more recently disinterred by a small number of scientists who seem to put most of their efforts into communication with nonscientists as opposed to serious scientific output. All (or nearly all) of these individuals have religious commitments that would make the role of chance and contingency in nature and history unpalatable, leading predictably to a view of the Universe as a divine plan and of organism construction as consciously engineered design.

Whether or not you want to view the case for abandoning religion presented by Myers as a religious argument, you must agree that it is correct insofar as if gods exist, they did not tailor human anatomy, let alone the Universe, for the benefit of Homo sapiens. To cite a single glaring example, if we were designed by a god, then he, she, they or it must not have cared too much for our safety inasmuch as our breathing tube and feeding tube share a common intake. It didn't have to be that way; diverse clades of invertebrates never have to fear of choking on their food for they do not share this construction pattern. Of course, this does not rule out the existence of a pantheistic god working through laws, nor a god who might indeed be a gaseous hominid but simply didn't care to do the job to the standards of a middling human engineer when making the fleshed out mini-mes. Indeed a god, if in existence, could choose to leave as much up to law and chance as he or she liked, and could interfere at will. This sort of deity, again, could produce literally anything, is completely untestable, and is well outside the purview of science. I would agree with you that arguments about the nature of gods are inherently religious or philosophical rather than scientific, and this includes their existence, as there is no demonstrable, objective evidence for the existence of gods any more than for unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster. Yahweh, Thor, and Isis stand on the same side of the fence with these other mythical beasts, staring across at seemingly equally improbable creatures like the blue whale, giraffe, and Brachiosaurus for which we do have tangible evidence.

Common descent is a scientific theory, not a religious commitment. It remains standing or falls on the basis of evidence from the natural world. Our view of the tree of life has been strongly modified from the Darwinian view; genetic anastomosis extends well beyond hybridization between closely related species. That some predictions in evolutionary science have failed does not imply the failure of the theory of common descent; these predictions are based on not only common descent but also the particular interpretations of evolutionary process made by the researchers and their view of phylogeny and history. That view is clouded by the fragmentary nature of the fossil record as well as gaps between living clades left by extinction. Evolutionary history is inherently prone to some unpredictability due to historical contingency and species with individualistic histories. Species and clades are not electrons, if you've seen one, you've still only seen one. Weather is another natural phenomenon that like biological evolution is subject to contingency, making predictions in even this simpler physical system very dicey beyond a few days into the future. Is meteorology a religion?

"I think falsification is a rigorous standard, and that falsification is a decent way to practice science."

Yes, you're an evolutionist. But outside of evolution, science actually requires evidences to back up claims that an idea is fact. That the idea has managed to escape falsification does not make it a fact (or even a good idea).

"Can you give me a philosophy of science where common descent is non-science, and ID is?"

Sure, no religious premises allowed. If that were the predominant philosophy of science then we wouldn't even be talking about evolution or common descent.

I have taken some time investigating your opinions. I apologize for not knowing the extent of your background in this area.

Believe it or not, I am open to the possibility of an ID scientific hypothesis. So much so, I developed one myself.

Note, I believe 99% of the ID Movement is religious based and mostly a new form of creationism.

It is that remaining 1% that intrigues me. What if the ID proponents are on to something even if for the wrong reason.

When the time is right and if you are interested, I can go into the details of my version of an ID Hypothesis.

Meanwhile, I would like to discuss some assumptions in the opening post.

You wrote..."Evolution, the theory that natural processes created all life, is mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created our world. Ironically, a belief about God underwrites a theory that, as Richard Dawkins put it, "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

First of all, I am uninterested in who did what to whom, who is being disingenuous, etc. I am focused on what I can understand.

How can anyone be "intellectually fulfilled" when the origin of the universe is unknown? I guess it is possible to be satisfied with an incomplete answer, but I wouldn't say fulfilled.

Also, I don't have a problem with the idea God created the universe, which means God could have indirectly created the Earth and all living things.

As to whether or not God is "natural", that is a question that may be impossible to answer.

I happen to think it is likely the Earth was seeded by organic material from space. After that, life evolved over time into the diversity we see today.

However, there is no such thing as True Randomness. Therefore, while Natural Selection pretty much operates as mainstream evolutionary theory suggests, Random Mutation is a myth. It just looks random when in reality there is a consciousness behind the quantum level interactions.

So, am I an evolutionist? If so, is my hypothesis "...mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created our world"?

I take it neither of you has any concepts of the critiques of verificationism, nor why falsification has largely replaced it as as a philosophy, and the means by which sciences are practiced. Popper.... Regardless, I list entire fields supporting common descent.

""Can you give me a philosophy of science where common descent is non-science, and ID is?"

Sure, no religious premises allowed.""

That might be a rule, but not a philosophy in any meaningful way. How does one formulate and test hypothesis with that method?

The rule "no religious premises allowed" is also one I fully accept. No single hypothesis I have ever formulated, as a scientist, requires atheism (or theism). They are, and evolution is, non-theistic. Hence, PZ Myers and Francis Collins can work in the same field, and on scientific terms, get along. What they do on Sunday, and what worldviews they think the science supports is another matter.

I keep bringing up the meteorology example for that very reason.

Rejection of the inclusion of Tlaloc, lord of all sources of water, clouds, rain, lightening etc (or Pat Robertson's interpretation of Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake, if you prefer) is not atheistic. It is non-theistic. We don't include god in plate tectonics, meteorology, etc, and you never seem to object to that. I don't include god or a lack of god when I teach biology. PZ Myers doesn't include god in his publications, just his public advocacy of atheism.

It is ID's advocacy of the active teaching of a 'designer' in the classroom that breaks this truce. It is laughable that this ID-associated blog (I think?) be based on Dr. Hunter's stated rule "Sure, no religious premises allowed*."

*Except for the premise of the supernatural designer playing with biology.....

I actually think that PZ Meyers is right. God wouldn't have created a world like this. And actually, He didn't. How do we know that? Genesis tells us what kind of a world He would have created. A perfect world, free from sin, death, pain, disease, strife, and suffering. This world became as it is today - filled with suffering and death and disease - only after Adam and Eve sinned and incurred God's curse of death. He is able to make this point against ID scientists because IDers are not allowed to use Scripture to fight the battle. Not fair though as, like Dr. Hunter says, Meyers himself is using a religious argument. However, this is a weakness in the ID argument. It is unable to deal with the argument of pain, death, and suffering in the world adequately.

Robert,You poor, willfully obtuse and myopic scholar ... Saint Chuckie's tome is one long "unless you show my hypotheses false (*) you must accept them" pseudo-argument. Nothing much has changed.

(*) And, as the history of the world developed, it turned out that The Sage of Down House had quite an evolved knack for overlooking reasoned rebuttals of his ... ahem ... hypotheses. Again, nothing much has changed.

Does anyone else find it amusing that Robert -- whom we all can see is not interested in actually reasoning and finding truth -- wants to characterize my disinclination to jump-to as a "bluff."

Robert is capable of reading; and I'm not his tutor. And even if I were, I can't see for him that which he won't see for himself. If'd he'd ever read any of that excellent work of scholarship (*) he'd not be denying the nature of Saint Chuckie's "one long argument."

(*) unless, of course, the problem isn't lack of knowledge, but lack of honesty

Ilion: I think common descent is true inasmuch as a scientific theory can be said to be true. If only "facts" constitute "true statements" and if only observables count as "facts" then certainly universal common descent is not a "true statement." But in science, well supported theories are treated as facts, as stepping stones to further inference. It could turn out that in the future a new hypothesis explains all the evidence of the biological world better than common descent, in which case common descent will fade with time. Based on experience with past scientific revolutions, if it happens, it will likely involve funerals as well as changed minds (witness Agassiz and many Soviet geologists in the wake of plate tectonics). On what grounds is common descent an accepted and acceptable theory? Common descent is certainly well supported by the evidence we observe in the natural world (once again, Theobald's "Scientific Case for Common Descent" is the Cliff notes version). Even a badgered Cornelius Hunter admitted as much (on the Jerry Coyne embryology thread): "Of course there is evidence that supports evolution. There is plenty--a mountain as evolutionists like to say." He then goes on to say that there are also data that are a problem for evolution, but again these are problems in evolutionary theory or in our lack of current knowledge of a particular clade or species, rather than a falsification of common descent.

While universal common descent may be theory as opposed to directly observed fact, common descent becomes harder to resist at more exclusive levels. My common descent with my brother is a fact. I have third cousins; no individual has seen first hand all the births required to establish our common descent, but I would still hold this to be "true" stringing together observations from multiple parties. For our species, I view the genetic evidence as sufficient for establishing common descent for Homo sapiens. Specifically, I would view the mitochondrial and fossil evidence as a valid reason for accepting as a common matrilinial ancestor as an African woman who lived between 100 and 200 thousand years ago. Do you disagree and view human common descent as false?

Cornelius has mentioned before that he doesn't like Darwin's statements about potential "falsification" of evolution. But Darwin knew that his ideas would enjoy what we would call the "null" status today. Never in recorded human history had a new species of animal life materialized out of thin air as was called for (millions of times) by creationism, but Darwin showed that the morphological disparity among varieties of some species are as great as those between recognized "good" species: variability + extinction of intermediates = new species without any miracles. Today we add to this observed speciation, plus the knowledge that selection from heritable variation has produced more skull shape disparity within Canis lupus familiaris over the short span of thousands of years than we see in all wild carnivorans combined (Drake and Klingenberg 2010; American Naturalist 175: 289–301). Mutations affecting development give natural (or artificial) selection plenty to work with.

"Rejection of the inclusion of Tlaloc, lord of all sources of water, clouds, rain, lightening etc (or Pat Robertson's interpretation of Katrina and the Haitian Earthquake, if you prefer) is not atheistic. It is non-theistic. We don't include god in plate tectonics, meteorology, etc, and you never seem to object to that. I don't include god or a lack of god when I teach biology. PZ Myers doesn't include god in his publications, just his public advocacy of atheism.

It is ID's advocacy of the active teaching of a 'designer' in the classroom that breaks this truce. It is laughable that this ID-associated blog (I think?) be based on Dr. Hunter's stated rule "Sure, no religious premises allowed*."

*Except for the premise of the supernatural designer playing with biology....."

====How can anyone be "intellectually fulfilled" when the origin of the universe is unknown? I guess it is possible to be satisfied with an incomplete answer, but I wouldn't say fulfilled.====

I guess the origin of the universe is far more remote than the origin of species. Before Darwin the latter had no accepted mechanistic explanation.

====So, am I an evolutionist? If so, is my hypothesis "...mandated by the religious belief that God would not have created our world"?====

It sounds like you are not mandating evolution is a fact, or beyond a shadow of a doubt, etc. Instead, it sounds like you are exploring the idea as a possibility. If so, then I would answer "no" to both questions.

Ilion: "Is the hypothesis of common descent true? And, on what grounds is it said to be true?"

John: "I think common descent is true inasmuch as a scientific theory can be said to be true."

There is no such thing as "true in as much as" -- a statement, a truth-claim, is either:1) true -- the statement conforms to and reflects a state of affairs2) false -- the statement does not conform to or reflect a state of affairs3) nonsensical (in which case, is it really a statement?)

Now, for any given statement, there is no guarantee that we can *determine* whether the statement is true or false -- but that fact about the state of our knowledge doesn't change the facts about the nature of truth-claims.

John: "If only "facts" constitute "true statements" and if only observables count as "facts" then certainly universal common descent is not a "true statement.""

Are you being intellectually inconsistent, here? Or worse? You folk (I must, for the instant, include you, personally, with "your team," regardless of where you, personally, stand) -- you proponents of scientism -- start with exactly that as an axiom.

Your amusing prior statement ("Common descent is a scientific theory, not a religious commitment. It remains standing or falls on the basis of evidence from the natural world.") -- aside from reflecting a false conception of "religion" -- assumes the very thing you're now apparently disavowing.

John: "But in science, well supported theories are treated as facts, as stepping stones to further inference."

But, I didn't ask about "facts," nor about induction. I asked about truth, and about deduction.

John: "On what grounds is common descent an accepted and acceptable theory?"

I didn't ask about whether you "accept" the hypothesis of common descent as an "acceptable theory."

I asked, is it true? and on what grounding is its status as 'true' (rather than 'false') based? I asked, by what rational deduction(s) is it known to be true?

You folk -- all of you DarwinDefenders -- are asserting (and most of you are shrieking) that we DarwinDeniers have no right to decline to believe that Darwinism states important truths about the nature of reality.

Dr Hunter, I have read the above reference, and I see no evidence that the arguments of Sober or Gould concerning what God might or might not have done are intended to be “proofs.”====

"Sober goes on to explain that such "useless" designs make separate ancestry unlikely, and therefore make common ancestry likely."

"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense."

I can show you the evidence, but I realize that doesn't mean you will see it.

I’m sorry, Dr Hunter, I should have clicked on the link in the page referenced above to find the quotation from Gould that you have now posted here.

But I stand by my claim that such opinions - about what God might or might not have done - by Gould, Sober, Darwin, or anyone else are not a foundational principle of evolutionary theory. They are not scientific statements, because they are not testable. They could only be testable if we knew what paths a “sensible God” would tread, and we cannot know that.

====The utility of evolutionary theory as a framework for the study of biology does not rest on such rhetoric. It rests on the published scientific literature, easily accessible nowadays on the Internet.====

Utility is a different matter. The flat earth model has utility.

But not as much utility as the alternative, don’t you agree? If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it. By “useful,” I mean of use to biologists.

Ilion: Scientists think common descent is true. It may or may not be true. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could one day show us the video footage of him planting fossils and stitching in retroviral sequences just to fool us.

If you only want to believe what is true (known with 100% certainty to be true) then there isn't much of great interest in the natural world you can know. You would probably be happier studying mathematics rather than science.

The presence of genetic synapomorphies in association with branching common descent is a research finding rather than an assumption (again, see Theobald). Of course you can always choose to reject my premises, even common descent with my brother, because there's always the milkman hypothesis.

You and Cornelius have every right to personally reject common descent, but you can't expect the scientific community to take you seriously based on incredulity and logical word puzzles.

John: Maybe Ilion and Cornelius don´t want the scientific community reject the common descent theory, maybe they just want the scientific community explain that theory as one that explain some observations and has a chance to be wrong as for example if is true a couple of monkey ancestor have jumped in the sea that separated Africa from Southamerica and rafted a couple of weeks in it.

========But I stand by my claim that such opinions - about what God might or might not have done - by Gould, Sober, Darwin, or anyone else are not a foundational principle of evolutionary theory. ========

Of course they are. Sober is not issuing an opinion, he is analyzing the probability claims, and why evolution is said to be a fact. These claims go back centuries. They motivate and justify evolutionary thought.

The consensus opinion is that evolution is a fact, and the arguments for this are metaphysical. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand evolution. We wouldn't be talking about evolution if it weren't for these arguments.

=======They are not scientific statements, because they are not testable. They could only be testable if we knew what paths a “sensible God” would tread, and we cannot know that.=======

Which is why evolution is not a scientific theory.

=========== Utility is a different matter. The flat earth model has utility.

But not as much utility as the alternative, don’t you agree? If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it. By “useful,” I mean of use to biologists.===========

Hilarious, now you are employing the very foundational principle you denied above.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying religious premises ought not to be allowed in science. It's not my style, but if Darwin, Miller, Myers, Coyne, and the evolutionists want to intertwine the two, and base their science on their religion, that's fine with me. Just don't say it is a fact.

Which is to say: "scientists" cannot *show* that the hypothesis of common descent is true. And yet, "scientists" assert that I and all other persons must accept (notice the term) the hypothesis of common descent is bring true.

Which is to say: just what I said all along.

John: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster ..."

You people are fools. Always!

Just to be clear (for we all know what you folk are like) -- I didn't say that you are stupid; I said that you are intellectually dishonest; I said that you are not interested in searching for and knowing truth.

John: "You and Cornelius have every right to personally reject common descent, but you can't expect the scientific community to take you seriously based on incredulity and logical word puzzles."

Listen to you! A fool! A despiser of reason and truth! A scientiste (as Miss Piggy is an Artiste!), a poseurs for scientism.

Whatever Mr Hunter's view (for which I obviously do not speak), I don't give a damn about being in the good graces of "the scientific community" -- the poseurs who call themselves that are scientistic fools.

Of course they are. Sober is not issuing an opinion, he is analyzing the probability claims, and why evolution is said to be a fact. These claims go back centuries. They motivate and justify evolutionary thought.

Dr Hunter, I appreciate your attention to my posts, and I thank you. I don’t know how you keep up with all of these postings, but I hope your interest in doing so will not flag.

As to your comment above, if Sober is analyzing probability claims, what method was he using, Fisherian or Bayesian? Do you have a reference to where he does this? I would like to see the numbers, to aid my understanding. I find this topic interesting.

===========Utility is a different matter. The flat earth model has utility.

But not as much utility as the alternative, don’t you agree? If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it. By “useful,” I mean of use to biologists.===========

Hilarious, now you are employing the very foundational principle you denied above.

Sorry to be so thick, but what was the foundational principle that I employed? That evolutionary theory is useful? If I gave that impression, I did not so intend. Utility is a measure of fruitfulness in advancing our understanding of nature. And I await your citation of a more fruitful theory.

In retrospect, I should have said foundational hypothesis, not foundational principle. You know the sorts of things: random variation occurs in organisms; organisms are subject to natural selection for reproductive success; over time this has produced and continues to produce changes in the forms existing on our planet.

Macroevolution (branching common descent with modification plus extinction) and a fragmentary fossil record yield the nested hierarchy. Actually, descent (recency of shared ancestry) is the only defining characteristic used in modern systematics. Ancestry is diagnosed on the basis of shared derived character states. If no character states change, then we cannot diagnose these patterns, but thank God - evolution is a fact. So long as we study morphologically complex organisms (like vertebrates) or sample genetics, patterns related to common ancestry emerge. Thus, loss of a character state is no big deal. Snakes might not be "tetrapods" in a literal sense of bearing four limbs, but Serpentes is a subclade within Tetrapoda because snakes are descendants of the last common ancestor of Acanthostega gunnari and Homo sapiens.

Joe G. - "Then there are all the transitional forms to account for- by their very nature these transitionals have a mix of characteristics which would violate the nested hierarchy."

If you mean Archaeopteryx, et al. there's no problem here. It's both a bird and a dinosaur. Birds are nested within dinosaurs, which in turn are nested within reptiles. Taxonomy is still largely a nested hierarchy, but it's not the Linnean scheme and really hasn't been for more than 20 years.

====Dr Hunter, I appreciate your attention to my posts, and I thank you. I don’t know how you keep up with all of these postings, but I hope your interest in doing so will not flag.====

I operate according to the naive premise that if I provide facts and knowledge to people then they will act rationally on that information. I explain the misrepresentations, lies and religion in evolution. That evolution makes a mockery of science, and that if you promote, support or lend your voice to evolution, then you are supporting these things. That the rational action to take is to place integrity over success. Now I realize that if you do this then you will lose any opportunity for advancement, you will be looked down upon, perhaps lose your job, lose future grants, and you will be ridiculed. Oh, one other thing: you will be on the side of truth.

====if Sober is analyzing probability claims, what method was he using, Fisherian or Bayesian? Do you have a reference to where he does this? I would like to see the numbers, to aid my understanding. I find this topic interesting.====

Sober is not *using* any method per se. He is documenting the methods of evolutionary thought. A recent paper of his is here:

===Sorry to be so thick, but what was the foundational principle that I employed? ===

You wrote:

" But I stand by my claim that such opinions - about what God might or might not have done - by Gould, Sober, Darwin, or anyone else are not a foundational principle of evolutionary theory. [...] But not as much utility as the alternative, don’t you agree? If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it. "

Evolutionary thought hinges on contrastive arguments (since the theory can't stand on its own). You suggested otherwise, and then went ahead and used your own contrastive argument.

First you said evolutionists don't use contrastive arguments to prove evolution. That's false. You next said such arguments are not foundational to evolution. Again false. Then you used your own contrastive argument, the classic cri de coeur ("If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it.") in the form of the Tu quoque fallacy (to put it nicely). Whether or not I have an origins theory, and how good it is, is irrelevant to the *fact* that evolution uses contrastive arguments which are metaphysical as its proof.

Thank you for the reference, which I have now scrutinized. I saw that Sober does discuss probabilities in terms of The Law of Likelihood, which looks Bayesian and qualitative to me. As I understand it, Sober was analyzing Darwin’s reasoning, in support of Sober’s thesis that common ancestry had evidential priority over natural selection in Darwin’s development of his theory. I saw no mention of God or religion anywhere in the paper.

Darwin’s thought processes are of interest to psychologists and scholars of science history, I guess, but are less important to science than the quality of the evidence that Darwin amassed to support his theory in Origin. When you introduce empirical evidence into a discussion you are moving from speculation into scientific territory.

===Sorry to be so thick, but what was the foundational principle that I employed? ===

You wrote:

" But I stand by my claim that such opinions - about what God might or might not have done - by Gould, Sober, Darwin, or anyone else are not a foundational principle of evolutionary theory. [...] But not as much utility as the alternative, don’t you agree? If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it. "

Evolutionary thought hinges on contrastive arguments (since the theory can't stand on its own). You suggested otherwise, and then went ahead and used your own contrastive argument.

Thank you for your more extensive explanation. I was not aware of the term contrastive argument. That gives me helpful insight into your thinking and a way to communicate more clearly to you. But I disagree with your claim that such arguments are the essential support for the theory of evolution. On the contrary, empirical evidence supports the theory.

First you said evolutionists don't use contrastive arguments to prove evolution. That's false. You next said such arguments are not foundational to evolution. Again false.

You and I have already agreed that contrastive arguments, such as “God wouldn’t have done it this way,” have no scientific content. What has scientific content in relation to a theory is how well the theory explains the evidence and how well the evidence fits the theory. If an evolutionist has used a contrastive argument, it is scientifically irrelevant, though it may have relevance to historical or pedagogical interests. That is my position, so I take your charges of falsity as simply your expressions of disagreement.

Then you used your own contrastive argument, the classic cri de coeur ("If you know of a more useful model for the origins of biological diversity than evolutionary theory, please reveal it.") in the form of the Tu quoque fallacy (to put it nicely). Whether or not I have an origins theory, and how good it is, is irrelevant to the *fact* that evolution uses contrastive arguments which are metaphysical as its proof.

As I have said, I see no basis for your claim that a scientifically testable theory, such as evolution, rests on contrastive arguments. That is, after all, the point at issue, on which it is clear we cannot agree. So I am content to rest my case on that score.

It interests me, however, that you now call such arguments (as used by evolutionists) metaphysical; I thought you considered them religious. Is there no distinction between metaphysics and religion?

As for my request for a better theory, or for any alternative theory, I am not sure that it is an argument. But it is a genuine request. I was talking about science, and if evolutionary theory is an impediment to the scientific enterprise, I would like to know how, and what could replace it. If you have no interest in that, I'm disappointed, but we all have our priorities.

You say I have committed the tu quoque fallacy “(to put it nicely).” Please don’t spare my feelings. Tell me candidly how I have offended either your person or common courtesy. I want to be a good citizen, and if I have behaved badly, I will amend my ways.

Joe G. - Common descent, again is not enough. You need branching common descent and a fragmentary fossil record. Then you get the nested hierarchy (only at the higher levels, this won't always work within more recent genera that fossilize relatively well) because you have lost the direct ancestors. Ancestral "groups", like fish, are not part of the taxonomic hierarchy. The Linnean superclass Pisces is gone and has been for sometime now. "Fish" has no taxonomic meaning. It is an informal term for a paraphyletic assemblage. None of the formally named higher-level taxonomic groups are ancestral any more.

Gills are not a defining character of fish in the taxonomic hierarchy, because not only is there no such thing as a fish in the hierarchy, but also clade (formal higher-level taxonomic) membership is never defined on the basis of morphological traits you happen to possess at the moment, but rather on the pattern of shared ancestry. Your ancestry is something you can never lose. That is the only defining criterion for group membership in the best modern taxonomic practice, phylogenetics or cladistics. We use morphological traits to help diagnose ancestry, but they are not the definition. That doesn't mean you won't find stodgy texts that say things like "Chordates are defined by the presence of ...".

That also doesn't mean humans didn't at one time have ancestors that had gills. If we accept that we did, we get an explanation for why we get embryonic pharyngeal pouches so similar to those of embryonic fish, why our recurrent laryngeal nerve takes such a tortured route, and why our parathyroid glands consist of a serially repeated pair of paired glands housed in the neck. It seems that parathyroids are modified gills; humans have gills after all.http://www.pnas.org/content/101/51/17716.full